Mortgage Securitisation - Paragon V Pender Title to Sue Judgements - For Debate & Discussion

[IS IT ME?]

erm Thank you for the reply bhall, I'am with Ken thank you

 

I think some one works for them as you would not get the forms and as you say its the BORROWER which give legal title not the lender. But this does not mean that the lender still holds legeal title for these mortgages this has been transferred when the sale went though.

As I have asked for a Director of the company to sign an statement of truth that they still own this mortgage for 2 years and 3 court case's they have not! why not??

[bhall]

erm Thank you for the reply bhall, I'am with Ken thank you

 

I think some one works for them as you would not get the forms and as you say its the BORROWER which give legal title not the lender. But this does not mean that the lender still holds legeal title for these mortgages this has been transferred when the sale went though.

As I have asked for a Director of the company to sign an statement of truth that they still own this mortgage for 2 years and 3 court case's they have not! why not??

 

 

Good Afternoon Is It Me?

 

Anyone can get the forms, just google accord mortgage deed.

 

It is amazing what you can find using google

 

Thanks

 

Ben

[applecart]

erm Thank you for the reply bhall, I'am with Ken thank you

 

I think some one works for them as you would not get the forms and as you say its the BORROWER which give legal title not the lender. But this does not mean that the lender still holds legeal title for these mortgages this has been transferred when the sale went though.

As I have asked for a Director of the company to sign an statement of truth that they still own this mortgage for 2 years and 3 court case's they have not! why not??

 

Exactly!!, Well said....but I think you know the answer to that Is It Me....The whole scheme of things is controlled by SPV's - our councils, our government, our homes, HMLR, Judges, Lordships....even Ben - Bless : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

You and I both know it but it has to change and maybe just maybe its happening. And it's just a case of asking the right questions like above and not getting the answers which are the truth which will open this up

People like Ben always put you down or give mis-information so they can stop any one opening this up yet do not help in ant way just like last time rember he has not been on for a long time and again could not answer the questions I put to him.

I for one have had enough and if they want a fright then they have got it, I don't mind paying a reasonable rate and doing it right but I am not going to pay some one else's bonus or interest.

Lets see what happens now.

[IS IT ME?]

By the way Ben if you read the so called internet page you will see that ALL of the documents you refer to are dated 2011 and are in light of the sale of the mortgages which if you read the document therein they had to do.

I can not see where you state that applpecart is wrong in any of his posts or that the question of who owns what is stated.

[applecart]

You and I both know it but it has to change and maybe just maybe its happening. And it's just a case of asking the right questions like above and not getting the answers which are the truth which will open this up

People like Ben always put you down or give mis-information so they can stop any one opening this up yet do not help in ant way just like last time rember he has not been on for a long time and again could not answer the questions I put to him.

I for one have had enough and if they want a fright then they have got it, I don't mind paying a reasonable rate and doing it right but I am not going to pay some one else's bonus or interest.

Lets see what happens now.

 

 

It is no more possible for Ben to 'put me down' than it has been possible for detractors on the Mortgage Securitisation discussion thread to do so - non of them can stop that which is the written word of the LAW...it is to be noted that they soon stop commenting on the topic.....simply because they simply end up tying themselves up in knots....... time and time again....

 

Detractors never look to 'answer' anything... only to further the purpose of the lender which is to keep consumers ignorant to the LAW... that's the only way they can succeed... they have managed to keep consumers 'under wraps' on the topic and subject of Mortgage Securitisation since 2005 - we are now in 2013.... I don't want to begin to think how many houses they have absconded with in that time......

 

Moving forward......I agree, let's see what happens when many more Borrowers overcome their ignorance as to the facts.....

 

Apple : )

[applecart]

By the way Ben if you read the so called internet page you will see that ALL of the documents you refer to are dated 2011 and are in light of the sale of the mortgages which if you read the document therein they had to do.

I can not see where you state that applpecart is wrong in any of his posts or that the question of who owns what is stated.

 

Read????, that would be the same as asking him to 'acknowledge' - now you know that's not going to happen don't you IS IT ME : )

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

well you have to ask nicely lol

Its now well under way to change these orders and put the questions in the way you have and see what happens now as you quite rightly state this is the LAW and can not be changed nor dismissed by the judges.

I rember Sustious was it who was saying you can't do this and you can't do that what's happened to him??? he is very quiet now.

[applecart]

Aaah, yes, good ole 'Suetonius' the one who was found to have more than one AKA.....to ram home his/her detractions... ah well, the LP(MP) Act 1994 saw him and his alias's move on......... splitting of legal and equitable interests...... indeed!!!!....what a farce that was...... - that farce and nonsense has been truly sent to rest....

 

Now it is to deal with the Deed issue - which simply cannot be allowed to fester for much longer - not whilst it remains a risk that is against public policy against the interests of consumers......

 

This is why the Law Commission brought about the Reform Order of 2005.....

 

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

 

From the Introductory text of the above: -

 

Made 23rd June 2005 - Coming into force in accordance with Article 1(1)

 

"(a)the Lord Chancellor consulted—

(i)such organisations as appeared to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals for this Order,

(ii)the Law Commission,

(iii)the National Assembly for Wales, and

(iv)such other persons as he considered appropriate;.........

 

"(h)this Order creates burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of certain activities, and the Lord Chancellor is of the opinion that—

 

(i)the provisions of this Order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burdens being created, and

(ii)the extent to which this Order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law, makes it desirable for this Order to be made;"

Article 1 (1) says:1.— "(1) This Order may be cited as the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 and shall come into force at the end of the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which it is made"

 

So, if the LAW says a Deed is intended to be signed by the 'parties' to it - then, that is what is supposed to happen - BY LAW..... you cannot undo what the legislator has implemented just because it does not suit a personal commercial objective....... it's all good when nobody knows what you are up to....but....it's just tough luck when that 'luck' runs out and you are found out:whoo:

 

Regrettably for Lenders who have not signed deeds in the misguided belief that the Law is on their side......such as those who have for years acted against the interest of public policy in packaging and selling off pools of mortgages to SPV's....are more than due to come home to roost.....

 

I tell you what..... you'll soon see how quick it is for a plausible government to sort these so called times of 'austerity' out once this mess is sorted out!!!!... If we don't sort it.... Cyprus will not be just another news item for us in the UK, but a reality (dratt I've put my political head on.... not my place... we have Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg for that)

 

Applecart

[andrew1]

Oh dear, I'm going to do myself no favours here, but I'm going to do it anyway despite reading somewhere that I was supposed to be Suetonious too...

 

I got to know Suetonious extremely well as he/she was one of our infamous Cabot Fan Club. I never met the person or spoke to them in over 5 yrs on here, but between the fan club we exchanged somewhere near 10,000 emails between us exchanging much assistance, research and guidance to assist others in our time against Cabot.

 

1) Suetonious wasn't me (that's the god's honest truth),

 

2) If you knew the job he/she had you wouldn't be saying what you are saying (sadly I cannot/will not tell you)

 

3) Like apple, everything was based upon researched case laws and whilst not having to fight sub-prime lenders themselves, loved a factual debate.

 

Alas, the arguments fell a little like Bens have where somebody finds they have better things to do than argue the toss. There were some lively debates I grant you, whatever the outcome or acceptance of the views.

 

Sadly, Sue's departure was as a result of family illness that led to the loss of a loved one and also the need to wake up each morning and go to sleep at night not thinking about all things 'Cabot' or debt issues.

 

That's the truth of it I'm sorry to say.

 

A1

[bhall]

Aaah, yes, good ole 'Suetonius' the one who was found to have more than one AKA.....to ram home his/her detractions... ah well, the LP(MP) Act 1994 saw him and his alias's move on......... splitting of legal and equitable interests...... indeed!!!!....what a farce that was...... - that farce and nonsense has been truly sent to rest....

 

Now it is to deal with the Deed issue - which simply cannot be allowed to fester for much longer - not whilst it remains a risk that is against public policy against the interests of consumers......

 

This is why the Law Commission brought about the Reform Order of 2005.....

 

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

 

From the Introductory text of the above: -

 

Made 23rd June 2005 - Coming into force in accordance with Article 1(1)

 

"(a)the Lord Chancellor consulted—

(i)such organisations as appeared to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals for this Order,

(ii)the Law Commission,

(iii)the National Assembly for Wales, and

(iv)such other persons as he considered appropriate;.........

 

"(h)this Order creates burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of certain activities, and the Lord Chancellor is of the opinion that—

 

(i)the provisions of this Order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burdens being created, and

(ii)the extent to which this Order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law, makes it desirable for this Order to be made;"

Article 1 (1) says:1.— "(1) This Order may be cited as the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 and shall come into force at the end of the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which it is made"

 

So, if the LAW says a Deed is intended to be signed by the 'parties' to it - then, that is what is supposed to happen - BY LAW..... you cannot undo what the legislator has implemented just because it does not suit a personal commercial objective....... it's all good when nobody knows what you are up to....but....it's just tough luck when that 'luck' runs out and you are found out:whoo:

 

Regrettably for Lenders who have not signed deeds in the misguided belief that the Law is on their side......such as those who have for years acted against the interest of public policy in packaging and selling off pools of mortgages to SPV's....are more than due to come home to roost.....

 

I tell you what..... you'll soon see how quick it is for a plausible government to sort these so called times of 'austerity' out once this mess is sorted out!!!!... If we don't sort it.... Cyprus will not be just another news item for us in the UK, but a reality (dratt I've put my political head on.... not my place... we have Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg for that)

 

Applecart

 

Hello Apple,

 

I have read the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

a few times now. I might need to go to specsavers because I can't see where it says that a deed must be signed by both the grantor and the grantee to be valid and enforceable.

 

I can see where it says what an individual must do when they grant a deed and I can see what a company must do when it grants a deed.

 

I just can't for the life of me, see where it states that the grantee must sign the deed.

 

Can anyone else see where it actually states that ?

 

Thanks

 

Ben

[bhall]

By the way Ben if you read the so called internet page you will see that ALL of the documents you refer to are dated 2011 and are in light of the sale of the mortgages which if you read the document therein they had to do.

I can not see where you state that applpecart is wrong in any of his posts or that the question of who owns what is stated.

 

Good Morning IS IT ME?

 

I hope your well

 

Here is a link to some other mortgage deeds I have posted.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender&p=4186458&viewfull=1#post4186458

 

As Apple will agree I have stated on numerous occassions that I consider that he/she is wrong, if you read the rest of the mortgage deed thread you can see it is a repeated theme.

 

I am sorry I am not sure what you mean by "or that the question of who owns what is stated"

 

Thanks

 

Ben

[bhall]

Read????, that would be the same as asking him to 'acknowledge' - now you know that's not going to happen don't you IS IT ME : )

 

Apple

 

On the topic of people not reading things

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?335240-TMB-Securitisation&p=4197971&viewfull=1#post4197971

[applecart]

Oh dear, I'm going to do myself no favours here, but I'm going to do it anyway despite reading somewhere that I was supposed to be Suetonious too...

 

You have to admit it was a wee bit naughty of Suetonius to create the AKA's....especially when - enoughisenough and many others were trying to get to the stage where we are now....we could have saved so many years of debate and got to the nitty gritty much quicker....that is what is hard to swallow - in real terms, people lost their homes and continue to do so...because of what I refer to as 'detractors' - ...to me a 'detractor' is not someone who is wrong or right - they're simply 'blinkered'

 

I got to know Suetonious extremely well as he/she was one of our infamous Cabot Fan Club. I never met the person or spoke to them in over 5 yrs on here, but between the fan club we exchanged somewhere near 10,000 emails between us exchanging much assistance, research and guidance to assist others in our time against Cabot.

 

To be honest, I never got involved in the cabot discussion - I couldn't tell you what it was all about.....was it successful A1? Is there anything I could learn from it?

 

1) Suetonious wasn't me (that's the god's honest truth),

 

Good : )

 

2) If you knew the job he/she had you wouldn't be saying what you are saying (sadly I cannot/will not tell you)

 

It's not about what one does for a living, it's ones passion that's important....

 

3) Like apple, everything was based upon researched case laws and whilst not having to fight sub-prime lenders themselves, loved a factual debate.

 

I was one of the lucky Caggers to have debated with Suetonius, the threads were deleted because there were a few on the thread who would get a wee bit rude... I'm still smarting over the site team deleting those posts - my post count dropped : ( .....

 

Alas, the arguments fell a little like Bens have where somebody finds they have better things to do than argue the toss. There were some lively debates I grant you, whatever the outcome or acceptance of the views.

 

Ben is still with us for now....and yes, he may well move on...but, that's the nature of the topic.....Suetonius was adamant that there was no redress to s.58 - we know now that there is...lpa s.1 (7)... we know more about securitisation and how the Original Lenders right to possession is not conclusive at all as Suetonius seemed to believe and argue....

 

Sadly, Sue's departure was as a result of family illness that led to the loss of a loved one and also the need to wake up each morning and go to sleep at night not thinking about all things 'Cabot' or debt issues.

 

I'm saddened to hear that, Sue was a battle axe, the type we need on the forum, I hope he/she is ok - I never intend posters to take that what I say 'personally' - I certainly don't take anyone's comments personal... its a forum...it's open debate.....opinions can sometimes appear dogmatic and off hand - but never meant to be personal....

 

That's the truth of it I'm sorry to say.

 

Your a Gent and a Scholar A1....What are your thoughts as to where we are up to so far - do you think the debate is moving forward or do you think we are being progressive?

A1

 

Apple

[applecart]

Good Morning IS IT ME?

 

I hope your well

 

Here is a link to some other mortgage deeds I have posted.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?386717-Mortgage-Deed-Does-it-need-to-be-signed-by-the-lender&p=4186458&viewfull=1#post4186458

 

As Apple will agree I have stated on numerous occassions that I consider that he/she is wrong, if you read the rest of the mortgage deed thread you can see it is a repeated theme.

 

I am sorry I am not sure what you mean by "or that the question of who owns what is stated"

 

Thanks

 

Ben

 

Hi Ben

 

Understand something.... Is it Me, I and Others...have been debating this topic for many years, when we say things like '"or that the question of who owns what is stated" - we mean, we are aware that Lenders sell the mortgages to SPV's, we are aware that the Original Lender no longer owns the Borrowers mortgages or a right to possession of a Borrowers home...and we intend to move this matter forward until such time as we can stop Courts granting possession of a Borrowers home to SPV's whom Borrowers did not grant a right to possession....when the Borrower signed the Deed....

 

With you having posted so many Lenders Deeds, you have opened a 'can of worms'..... for where you believe that you are 'doing the right thing' - you are in fact 'fuelling the fire' on a topic that goes to the route of every Borrower - their Homes...

 

Each and every Deed you have posted confirms that Original Lenders have not signed the Deed.....whilst you believe all is well with this.... Borrowers know you are not 'clued' up on this topic.....I assure you.......all is not well......

 

To a Borrower - the finding that the Deed is not signed by the Lender is Key information... to you.... it's another day at the office............Is it Me and others are ahead of you.......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hello Apple,

 

I have read the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

a few times now. I might need to go to specsavers because I can't see where it says that a deed must be signed by both the grantor and the grantee to be valid and enforceable.

 

I can see where it says what an individual must do when they grant a deed and I can see what a company must do when it grants a deed.

 

I just can't for the life of me, see where it states that the grantee must sign the deed.

 

Can anyone else see where it actually states that ?

 

Thanks

 

Ben

 

'Specsavers' ...hahaha...

 

I'm pleased you have read it a few times Ben, I mean that, I really do....

 

But, 'reading' it is not enough..............The way I 'read' it was by setting out the sections of the 1989 Act, 1925 Act and other Acts that it references and input the amendments that it makes to those Acts - that way, Specsavers need not come into it....You then have to cross reference the Companies Act 2006 and Companies Act 1985....1925 Act etc and refer to the case law in Bibby, The Adjudicators decision and 'silver'..............not to mention, all the case law posted by you and the Answer.com's, wikepedia etc etc...............That's what 'reading' means in this sense Ben....

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

so there we HAVE it ha let the games begin

You still can't have PM s apple as really don't wont to post up yet.

[applecart]

so there we HAVE it ha let the games begin

You still can't have PM s apple as really don't wont to post up yet.

 

Oh, and boy are the 'games' beginning - I'm glad you know what we mean by 'games' - LOL : )

 

No, still no PM facility I'm afraid - I noted that the site team can PM me though - so, I can get them and read them but simply can't reply - try sending me one - let me know how you get on?

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

Sorry still can't PM you and as you know there are trolls on here so thinking before posting.

[applecart]

I'm unsure why the PM facility has been removed. It never used to be that way......

 

Would it help if we created a 'scenerio' - say, based on 'supposition' - i.e - Let's say you have a Deed, with only the Borrowers signature on..... and we say..... how do you go about challenging your lender without jeopardising the roof over your head?

 

What do you think - would it help if the posts were directed on that basis?

 

Apple

[ims21]

The posts and responses regarding IS IT ME and the Friend's mortgage have been moved to their own thread here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?391318-IS-IT-ME-and-The-Friend-s-Mortgage